2
Since September 11
th
, 2001 a great deal of media and academic attention has
turned toward the topic of terrorism: How can security be improved? What motivates
suicide terrorists? Is terrorism an efficient means to accomplishing political goals? This
deeper examination of the causes and consequences of terrorism as a violent strategy
leads logically to questions about the efficacy of non-violent strategies for change. Why
do some leaders choose violence as a strategy (e.g. Osama bin Laden) while others
consciously choose a strategy of peaceful resistance (e.g. Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr.,
Aung San Suu Kyi)? Putting aside the important moral questions about the
appropriateness of violence or non-violence, it is important to ask which strategy is more
effective at achieving desired changes? Are there circumstances under which one or the
other is a superior strategy?
This paper will address these questions through an examination of cases of both
violent and non-violent movements for change. Surprisingly, these two types of
movements have many of the same antecedent variables with only a few key differences.
Understanding these differences allows us predict the outbreak of violence, but more
importantly, it provides information that may be of use in efforts to encourage the tactics
of peaceful resistance rather than violence.
Previous Work on Violent Action for Change
To begin, this section of the paper will examine violent movements and action for
political change, often known as terrorist movements. Terrorism can either be used by the
state or against the state, with this paper focusing on the latter variety. Martha Crenshaw
defines terrorism as,
“…directed against governments for the purposes of political change” including
“the premeditated use or threat of symbolic, low-level violence by conspiratorial
Convention